05-11-2010 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 2010 --------------------------- 5.2. Page 4 Mr. Beck noted that the ordinance listed in the attachments in the memo to the Planning Conunission should be listed as No. 10-05. 112OTION BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER TO AMEND THE LAND USE AZAP ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSNE PLAN TO DESIGNATE THE CERTAIN PROPERTY AS "LANDFILL", CASE NO. LU 10-01. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. - Flk River T anrifill_ Tnr Pn}~lir uPa Y1 Y1Q _ The staff report was presented by Rebecca Haug. She provided visuals of the existing site and what it might look like with the expansion. She noted staff is looking for a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ives stated that it appears the Landfill may go beyond their property line to provide a 200-foot buffer from the expansion area. Mr. Beck stated one of the city's concerns is that state law requires a 200-foot buffer area between the fill area and the property line. He stated that the city cannot confirm that the state law has been complied with. If there were a recommendation to approve the request, there mould need to be a condition that the Landfill complies with state law. He indicated that unless the Landfill can prove otherwise, the buffer area would be outside the SWF District, which would not comply with the current city code. He explained that an amendment to the City Code would be required to allow the buffer area outside the property. Chair Westberg opened the public hearing. Jack Perry, Briggs & Morgan, counsel for Waste Management/Elk River Landfill, Inc. -stated that based on the staff report, there are four reasons why staff is recommending denial of the application: 1) the city's consultant Matt Ledvina opinion that there are issues of compliance with MPCA rules. Mr. Perry stated that Elk River Landfill is aware there are items that need to be met and they are willing to satisfy his concerns; 2) the expansion will require the destruction of trees in the southern buffer area. Mr. Perry stated that the trees in this area only provide screening for the property to the south, which is proposed to be mined by Tiller. He stated that Tiller has the right to mine their property, whether or not the Landfill expansion is approved. He explained that the trees to the east and west will remain. Mr. Perry stated that the Landfill has proposed screening, once the operations are complete; 3) the 200-foot buffer is proposed on propertythe Landfill does not own. Mr. Percy stated that it has been determined by district court that the Landfill has an interest in the property to the south. He stated that the court has noted if there are concerns that the city has which can be addressed with conditions, they must approve the request; 4) the city's interpretation that Judge Varco's order does not compel the cityto approve the Landfill's application. Mr. Perry stated that it is his opinion that the judge's order does compel the cityto allowthe 109-acre expansion. Mr. Perryfurther discussed issues related to the Landfill's lawsuit against the city and how they pertain to this application. He asked that the Commission postpone a decision on this application until they receive clarification from their legal counsel. There being no further public comment, Chair Westberg closed the public hearing. •